In prison, time is both punishment and currency. It is counted in courtrooms, crossed off calendars and measured against the possibility of release.
In August last year, the Victorian government quietly widened the category of offences for which additional prison time must ordinarily be served cumulatively.
This means that the extra prison time is added to an existing sentence, rather than being served at the same time.
If a sentence is ordered to be served concurrently, this means that it is served at the same time as an existing sentence and is not added on top.
The Corrections Legislation Amendment Act 2025 served to include the intentional or reckless infliction of injury or serious injury against custodial workers on duty and others working inside a prison as a “prison offence”.
If a court orders a prison sentence for one of these offences, it usually must be served on top of any uncompleted custodial sentence.
A judge can only order otherwise if there are exceptional circumstances to do so.
In prison, time is both punishment and currency. It is counted in courtrooms, crossed off calendars and measured against the possibility of release.
In August last year, the Victorian government quietly widened the category of offences for which additional prison time must ordinarily be served cumulatively.
This means that the extra prison time is added to an existing sentence, rather than being served at the same time.
If a sentence is ordered to be served concurrently, this means that it is served at the same time as an existing sentence and is not added on top.
The Corrections Legislation Amendment Act 2025 served to include the intentional or reckless infliction of injury or serious injury against custodial workers on duty and others working inside a prison as a “prison offence”.
If a court orders a prison sentence for one of these offences, it usually must be served on top of any uncompleted custodial sentence.
A judge can only order otherwise if there are exceptional circumstances to do so.
The new rule in Victoria is nearly identical to existing laws in New South Wales, which orders sentences for assaults committed by people in prison against staff to be served cumulatively, unless there is a special circumstance.
In most other states and territories, it remains up to the ruling judge or magistrate whether the sentence should be served alongside existing prison time or on top of it.
The purpose is understandable. Prison staff are entitled to go to work without being assaulted, and a sentence that adds no actual time may also be seen to carry no real consequence.
But appearance is not the same as prevention.
Deterrence depends, at least partly, on a person anticipating the likely consequences before acting, but prison violence does not always unfold that way. It can erupt in seconds, within an environment shaped by fear, frustration, confinement, mental illness and strained relationships.
In the moment, it is doubtful anyone is carefully distinguishing between a concurrent sentence and a cumulative one.
And the potential for extra prison time being a deterrent will also differ among different people. What weight does additional time carry for someone approaching release, and what weight does it carry for someone already serving decades?
The law does not entirely remove judicial discretion, but it confines it. Judges still consider the circumstances of the incident and the person before the court, but a concurrent sentence is now available only where exceptional circumstances exist.
Discretion is important, and a sentencing system must remain capable of recognising the difference between violence being deliberate and calculated, and being due to severe distress, illness, disability, drug withdrawal or another crisis.
Prison safety is influenced by more than punishment, and things like fair and consistently-applied rules, skilled staff, respectful relationships and meaningful activities all lead to lower levels of violence.
Harsher, more unstable and highly controlling environments may produce the opposite result.
Cumulative sentences can send a message on violence and recognise the harm suffered by prison staff, and these are legitimate purposes of punishment.
But it’s uncertain whether they will prevent the next assault.
If violence grows inside a pressure cooker, adding more time may tighten the lid – it does not necessarily lower the heat.
The new rule in Victoria is nearly identical to existing laws in New South Wales, which orders sentences for assaults committed by people in prison against staff to be served cumulatively, unless there is a special circumstance.
In most other states and territories, it remains up to the ruling judge or magistrate whether the sentence should be served alongside existing prison time or on top of it.
The purpose is understandable. Prison staff are entitled to go to work without being assaulted, and a sentence that adds no actual time may also be seen to carry no real consequence.
But appearance is not the same as prevention.
Deterrence depends, at least partly, on a person anticipating the likely consequences before acting, but prison violence does not always unfold that way. It can erupt in seconds, within an environment shaped by fear, frustration, confinement, mental illness and strained relationships.
In the moment, it is doubtful anyone is carefully distinguishing between a concurrent sentence and a cumulative one.
And the potential for extra prison time being a deterrent will also differ among different people. What weight does additional time carry for someone approaching release, and what weight does it carry for someone already serving decades?
The law does not entirely remove judicial discretion, but it confines it. Judges still consider the circumstances of the incident and the person before the court, but a concurrent sentence is now available only where exceptional circumstances exist.
Discretion is important, and a sentencing system must remain capable of recognising the difference between violence being deliberate and calculated, and being due to severe distress, illness, disability, drug withdrawal or another crisis.
Prison safety is influenced by more than punishment, and things like fair and consistently-applied rules, skilled staff, respectful relationships and meaningful activities all lead to lower levels of violence.
Harsher, more unstable and highly controlling environments may produce the opposite result.
Cumulative sentences can send a message on violence and recognise the harm suffered by prison staff, and these are legitimate purposes of punishment.
But it’s uncertain whether they will prevent the next assault.
If violence grows inside a pressure cooker, adding more time may tighten the lid – it does not necessarily lower the heat.
